4 ms·

"It only takes a simple back of the envelope calculation to show that space based power makes no sense even in theory." That would be my gut feeling, but what

"It only takes a simple back of the envelope calculation to show that space based power makes no sense even in theory." That would be my gut feeling, but what simple calculation would you use to disproof it? Fusion is currently not working at all - but we can transmit power (with big losses over that distance) via laser etc. But since space is expensive, I just see no way to make this work economically.

practicemaths 3y ago
People were saying the same thing about terrestrial solar for decades. Both fundamentally are engineering problems now. Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering. Technology takes a while to develop and mature with applications for this beyond just beaming power to Earth.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering." Yes, but the cost of installing solar panels on the ground are astronomically cheaper than anything you can do in space and I do not see the gap closing in the near future, even with breakthroughs. Rather the contrary, we still have lots of cheap unused land (deserts). And solar panels are getting cheaper every day. Having a space based laser/power beam sounds cool - but complicated and expensive.
  - practicemaths 3y ago
    The applications for this are well beyond Earth. Additionally there was a lot more useful testing of various related aspects in this beyond just beaming power to Earth per the article.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Oh the technology per se is definitely something amazing, that warrants more research. I was just referring to this question of the thread, of can this be a useful energy source for the earth in the near future? And I think no. Rather fusion, even though that will likely take some more decades at least. But a breakthrough with fusion seems possible, but I cannot think of a breakthrough with space beams, that can ignore the atmosphere, or gravity (the main constraints).
      - practicemaths 3y ago
        Fair enough. Near future, I agree it's hard to imagine available resources for this outpacing available resources for fusion. Though fusion does have some more difficult technical engineering issues than SBS. By that I mean, as far I know, we have a decent understanding of what materials we would need and how to utilize said material for space based solar. While with fusion we are close to self sustainings reactions, we still lack understanding on containing the reaction itself for it to be feasible. That is, understanding the magnetic fluctuations around the plasma reaction and having material to housing it for extended periods of time. Of course with computing simulations becoming increasingly more accurate and powerful, those technical hurdles may not be as stringent as we see them today.
0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
I think the biggest problem is that the ground based receiving array is going to be so large you could have just installed solar panels in the same location. 24 hour power generation is nice, but the economics of batteries + ground based solar seems more likely to triumph. Edit: If you assume a ground based array has a 20% utilization factor, the space based panels + receivers can only be 5x the cost of the standard solar installation. Which requires ~free space launches, plus probably other technology we do not currently possess.

practicemaths 3y ago

People were saying the same thing about terrestrial solar for decades. Both fundamentally are engineering problems now. Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering. Technology takes a while to develop and mature with applications for this beyond just beaming power to Earth.

hutzlibu 3y ago
"Also considering that there has been a lot of investment in space launch vehicles of late the cost to lift things into orbit are lowering." Yes, but the cost of installing solar panels on the ground are astronomically cheaper than anything you can do in space and I do not see the gap closing in the near future, even with breakthroughs. Rather the contrary, we still have lots of cheap unused land (deserts). And solar panels are getting cheaper every day. Having a space based laser/power beam sounds cool - but complicated and expensive.
- practicemaths 3y ago
  The applications for this are well beyond Earth. Additionally there was a lot more useful testing of various related aspects in this beyond just beaming power to Earth per the article.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Oh the technology per se is definitely something amazing, that warrants more research. I was just referring to this question of the thread, of can this be a useful energy source for the earth in the near future? And I think no. Rather fusion, even though that will likely take some more decades at least. But a breakthrough with fusion seems possible, but I cannot think of a breakthrough with space beams, that can ignore the atmosphere, or gravity (the main constraints).
    - practicemaths 3y ago
      Fair enough. Near future, I agree it's hard to imagine available resources for this outpacing available resources for fusion. Though fusion does have some more difficult technical engineering issues than SBS. By that I mean, as far I know, we have a decent understanding of what materials we would need and how to utilize said material for space based solar. While with fusion we are close to self sustainings reactions, we still lack understanding on containing the reaction itself for it to be feasible. That is, understanding the magnetic fluctuations around the plasma reaction and having material to housing it for extended periods of time. Of course with computing simulations becoming increasingly more accurate and powerful, those technical hurdles may not be as stringent as we see them today.

0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago

I think the biggest problem is that the ground based receiving array is going to be so large you could have just installed solar panels in the same location. 24 hour power generation is nice, but the economics of batteries + ground based solar seems more likely to triumph. Edit: If you assume a ground based array has a 20% utilization factor, the space based panels + receivers can only be 5x the cost of the standard solar installation. Which requires ~free space launches, plus probably other technology we do not currently possess.